The Comedia and Two Theories of the Comic. A Review Article

Abstract

In his Laughter. A Psychoanalytic Theory Norman N. Holland suggests that all previous theories of the comic have failed because no definitive answer has been found for everyone to the question «At what do we laugh?» or «Under what conditions do we laugh?» So Holland, instead of generalizing about many individuals laughing at the same thing, sought to generalize about one individual laughing at different things. In an experiment that involved the cooperation of a graduate student, Holland recorded her reactions to a series of cartoons. He concluded that her recognition of the comic was determined by her identity, that is, the composite of all those personality traits that differentiate her from any other person, and that as she reacted to the cartoons she experienced an identity recreation. This is the experience of everyone who gives thought to any phenomenon. In order for the identity recreation to achieve a recognition of the comic, this must be sudden and playful. There is involved also the Freudian principle that the aim of behavior is perception and that a wish is a wish for a certain perception. Thus the elements of one's identity may facilitate for him a discovery of the comic or, on the contrary, make that discovery less probable. In the second of the theories of comedy to receive comment, Bruce W. Wardropper's La comedia española del Siglo de Oro , Holland's principles serve partly as a basis for discussion. Wardropper did not know Holland's theory; the former's study had appeared four years before the publication of the Holland volume. Wardropper rejected the well-known theory of Elder Olson who had proposed that theatrical comedy has no value since it is an imitation of a worthless action. Wardropper demonstrates to his own satisfaction that the comedy of the Golden Age is of comic significance. This transcendent value is found only in the comedia de capa y espada , a type of comedy the action of which takes place in an upside-down world of gay, cheerful and satumalian atmosphere. The action is nearly always concerned with the struggle of young lovers to achieve sexual union, a union which is made difficult by societal restrictions that usually have to do with money or social rank. Young women, seeking the freedom to choose their mates, a freedom denied them in real life, demonstrate in their rebellious effort to flout the conventions a thrust toward what has come to be called women's liberation. The lovers' struggle, seen as characteristic of all of us who often desire to rebel against social restrictions of any kind, is viewed as entirely justified; the comedia 's beneath-the-surface meaning is that society has no right to deny to an individual the privilege of exercising his biologic urge at will. An evaluation of the theory is offered both for the Golden Age and for our own time. (GEW)